Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Verma And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)AWC783
Author: M. Katju
Bench: M. Katju, U. Pandey
JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the result dated 19.12.2001 promoting the Scale I officers to Scale II officers in Farrukhabad Gramin Bank and for a writ of certiorari to quash the resolution dated 19.4,2001 and the examination held on the basis of the aforesaid resolution.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that the petitioners were directly recruited as officers in Farrukhabad Gramin Bank, and since then had been discharging their duties efficiently and honestly. True copies of the appointment orders are Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition. Similar appointment order was passed in favour of petitioner No. 4 in the year 1984 and it is alleged that the performance of the petitioners throughout had been meritorious.
4. The respondent Bank is governed by the provisions of the Regional Rural Banks' Act, 1976. For the purpose of appointment of the officers under Section 17 Rules have been framed in 1998, vide Annexure-4 to the petition. Promotion from Scale I to Scale II is done 100% by promotion which is on the basis of Seniority-cum-Merit, and only those officers who have been in regular service of the Bank for at least 8 years are entitled to be considered. The selection process has been exhaustively provided in the Rules. The written examination has 60 marks, interview has 20 marks, and performance appraisal has 20 marks. The written examination has two parts with 30 marks each, and the candidates who obtained 40% marks in each paper are invited for the interview.
5. It is alleged in para 11 of the petition that the petitioners being eligible for promotion to Scale II applied in pursuance of letter dated 20.4.2001. True copy of the application form of petitioner No. 1 is Annexure-1 to the petition. Other petitioners filed similar forms. The petitioners were issued call letters inviting them to appear in the written test, vide Annexures-6 and 7 to the petition. In pursuance of these letters, the petitioners appeared in the examination, and it is alleged in para 13 of the petition that the petitioners secured more than 40% marks in each paper of the written test. True copy of the result of the written examination is Annexure-8 to the petition. The petitioners were called for interview vide Annexure-9 to 12 to the petition. Thereafter 16 officers out of 27 officers have been selected for promotion to Scale II, vide Annexure-13 to the petition.
6. It is alleged in Para 16 of the petition that the procedure adopted for the selection for promotion to Scale II was wholly foreign to the procedure provided in the Rules made under Section 17. It is alleged in para 17 that the Board of Directors of the Bank had passed a resolution, dated 19.4.2001 for filling up 20 vacant posts of Scale II. True copy of the resolution is Annexure-14 to the petition.
7. It is alleged in para 18 of the petition that this resolution was against the provision of the Rule and was made for promoting favourites at the costs of deserving candidates. It is alleged in para 19 of the petition that the petitioners are seniors to those who have been selected.
8. It is alleged in para 20 that under the rules the basis of promotion is Seniority-cum-Merit, but seniority has been totally overlooked and ignored. The petitioners were more meritorious than the selected candidates as would be clear from the perusal of their confidential reports, and performance appraisal reports for the last 5 years.
9. A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same.
10. It is alleged in para 8 of the counter-affidavit that the selection was made strictly in accordance with the rules, and the allegations that there was arbitrariness or mala fide is wholly false. It is alleged in para 11 of the same that the selection as per the circular dated 19.4.2001 was in complete conformity with the procedure, and the petitioners never objected to the same. Once they have failed to clear the test, they cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the validity of the circular.
11. In para 12 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the promotion was made strictly on the basis of Seniority-cum-Merit. Candidates who secured a minimum qualifying marks of 55% were promoted strictly on the basis of the seniority, and there was no question of any supersession. In para 14, it is stated that as per the amended rules, 60 marks have been allocated for written test, 20 marks for performance appraisal and 20 marks for interview. Candidates who secured a minimum 40% marks in each paper were called for interview, and they were awarded marks on the basis of appraisal reports and in the interview. Only those candidates who secured a minimum aggregate of 55% marks in the total were treated as eligible for promotion.
12. In para 15 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that under the procedure prescribed by the rules only those officers of Scale I who had completed more than eight years of service a officer on regular basis were eligible for promotion to the Scale II, while all the officers eligible for promotion to the posts of Area Manager/Senior Manager Scale II on or before the publication of the notification continued to be considered for promotion to Scale II officers. Thus, all the left over officers of the last promotion process, i.e., 93 officers were eligible for consideration along with four times of the number of vacancies under the new policy. Since only 38 new officers of Scale 1 had completed eight years of service on 1.4.2000, hence 93 of the left over officers and 38 new officers, i.e., total of 131 were considered for promotion.
13. In para 16 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that since the Scale II post is a Middle Management Grade post entailing higher responsibilities and requiring higher managerial skills, a minimum of 55% marks was fixed for eligibility for promotion to be made on the basis of Seniority among the eligible candidates.
14. In para 24 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the question papers were prepared by an outside agency which conducts written tests for promotion in other Commercial Banks also. There was no irregularity whatsoever. The allegation that the question papers had been leaked is wholly unfortunate and incorrect.
15. On the facts of the case we find no merit in this petition.
16. Under the rules, the promotions were to be made on the basis of Seniority-cum-Merit. This no doubt means seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. In our opinion, however, to determine a person fit or unfit, it is open to the authorities to set up a minimum necessary merit requisite for the post. The competent authority can, therefore, lay down the minimum standard that will be required of a candidate, and only those who reach this minimum standard will then be promoted on the basis of seniority vide B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. v. K. Addanki Babu and Ors., JT 1998 (5) SC 96. Hence, it is not correct to say that the respondents violated the principle of Seniority-cum-Merit. As mentioned in para 12 of the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the candidates who secured a minimum qualifying marks of 55% marks were alone treated as eligible for promotion. Those who got this minimum 55% marks were then promoted strictly in accordance with seniority. We see nothing illegal in this.
17. In our opinion, it is always open to the authorities to fix a minimum requirement which a candidate must have before he can be considered for promotion on the basis of Seniority-cum-Merit. Hence, it is not correct to say that only those who have some adverse entries or other adverse material in their service record can be eliminated while considering promotions on the basis of Seniority-cum-Merit.
18. No doubt, one standard which the authorities can adopt for determining unfitness is the existence of adverse material in the service record of the candidate, but that is not the only way in which the authorities can declare a person unfit for being considered for promotion. The authorities can fix any objective criterion for this purpose, and this Court cannot sit in appeal over this minimum merit criterion fixed by the authorities. The authorities must be given wide latitude in the manner and mode of fixing this minimum merit.
19. In our opinion as long as the authorities have acted in good faith, this Court should not interfere but should exercise judicial restraint. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11, this approach has been discussed in great detail and hence we are not repeating the same.
20. In several decisions e.g., in Writ Petition No. 865 of 2001, Rapti Commission Agency v. State of U.P., decided on 8.7.2003 and in Writ Petition No. 34022 of 2002, XL-IIT v. State of U. P., decided on 27.5.2003, this Court has been emphasizing the importance of Judicial restraint vis-a-vis legislative or executive action. Of course, if there is clear violation of a statute or the Constitution this Court will interfere, but otherwise it should not. Judicial restraint enhances the respect and prestige of the judiciary, and stabilizes it. In this connection the judgments of Justice Holmes Brandeis and Frankfurter of the U. S. Supreme Court are of particular importance.
21. For the reasons given above there is no merit this petition, and it is dismissed.